Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/231)

for him to swear an oath, in which case he is believed on the strength of his oath. Likewise, if he claims to have had intercourse with her while she was previously married, his statement is accepted.

If someone were to ask: “Is not the presumption that intercourse did not take place?”

The answer is that this is a hidden matter, known only from his side. When a man wishes to resume relations with his wife, he does not say to people, “Come and bear witness.” Therefore, he is not required to produce evidence for something for which it is not customary to produce evidence. Moreover, if we were to open this door, the woman could gain power over her husband by claiming that he had not had intercourse with her. Thus, if she was previously married, his statement is accepted, but only with his oath. If he refuses to swear, judgment is rendered against him on account of his refusal; he is then ordered to divorce her, and if he refuses to divorce her, the judge divorces her.

An exception is made where a circumstantial indication points to his being untruthful—for example, if, during this period, the woman has been staying with her family, and she was previously married, yet he claims to have had intercourse with her. His claim is not accepted, because the circumstances belie him. If he says, “I came at night when her family were absent and had intercourse with her,” we say: this is contrary to what is outwardly apparent, so his statement is not accepted.

It thus becomes clear that if he claims that the period remains, his statement is accepted, because the presumption is that it remains. And if he claims that he had intercourse with her while she was previously married, his statement is accepted, because this is a hidden matter known only from his side, and he is therefore believed concerning it.

His words: “If she is a virgin, or claims to be a virgin and an upright woman testifies to this, she is believed.” If she is a virgin and he says that he had intercourse with her, while she says that he did not, and a trustworthy woman testifies that her virginity remains intact, then her statement is accepted, because the apparent indication is

أن يحلف فيُصدق بيمينه، أو ادعى أنه وطئها وهي ثيب فإن القول قوله. فإذا قال قائل: الأصل عدم الوطء؟! فالجواب: أن هذا أمر خفي لا يعلم إلا من جهته، فإن الإنسان إذا أراد أن يفيء إلى أهله لا يقول للناس: تعالوا اشهدوا، فلا يكلف البينة بأمر لم تجرِ به العادة؛ ولأننا لو فتحنا هذا الباب لتسلطت المرأة على زوجها، وقالت: إنه لم يجامع، فإذا كانت ثيباً فالقول قوله لكن مع يمينه، فإن أبى أن يحلف قضي عليه بالنكول، فيحكم عليه بالطلاق فإن أبى أن يطلق طلق القاضي. ويستثنى من ذلك إذا دلت القرينة على كذبه، مثل أن تكون المرأة في هذه المدة عند أهلها، وهي ثيب، ويدعي أنه وطئها فلا نقبله؛ لأن القرينة تكذبه، فلو قال: أنا جئت بالليل وأهلها غير موجودين وجامعتها، نقول: هذا خلاف الظاهر، فلا نقبل قوله. فتبين أنه إذا ادعى بقاء المدة فالقول قوله؛ لأن الأصل البقاء، وإذا ادعى أنه جامعها وهي ثيب فالقول قوله؛ لأن هذا أمر خفي لا يعلم إلا من جهته فصدق فيه. قوله: «وإن كانت بكراً أو ادعت البكارة وشهد بذلك امرأة عدل صُدِّقت» إن كانت بكراً، وقال: إنه جامعها، وقالت: ما جامعها، وشهدت امرأة ثقة بأن بكارتها لم تَزُل، فالقول قولها؛ لأن الظاهر